DEBATE GUIDELINES BANDUNG 28 – 30 OCTOBER 2013

DEBATE IN GENERAL Debate is a clash of arguments Debate is about speaking, listening, and respect differences Debate is to give your opinion about several issues, pros-cons Debate is using a system, unless it will be “debat kusir”

WSDC FORMAT There are 2 teams, Government/Affirmative and Opposition/Negative with 3 debaters each Substantial speech: 8 min, reply speech: 4 min 1st Aff  1st Neg  2nd Aff  2nd Neg  3rd Aff  3rd Neg  Reply Neg  Reply Aff The opposing team may give Points of Information (POI) to the speaker. POIs allowed between the 1st and 7th. No POIs in a reply speech. The speaker has authority to accept or reject

A time keeper shall signal the time. One knock at the 1st and 7th minute, to signal time for POI. Two knocks at the 8th minute to signal that delivery time for the speech has ended. Speaking before 7 minutes: undertime Speaking after 8 minutes 20 seconds: overtime Both case, his/her points could be reduced Reply speeches, one knock at the 3rd minute, and two knocks at the 4th minute

Every team is given 30 minutes preparation time (casebuild) after the motion is released and before the debate begins During this time, teams are not allowed to get help from anybody (e.g: coaches, teachers, parents or friends) or using laptop, PDA, or any communication devices Printed materials are allowed in casebuilding time, but not allowed during the speech

Debate is judged by an odd number of judges There is no draw in the result of a debate Tabulation: 1. Victory Points 2. Judges Points 3. Team Scores

RANK TEAM NAME VP JUDGES POINT TEAM SCORE 1 ISDC JABAR 4 12 1118 2 ISDC NAD 9 1004 3 ISDC JKT 8 1109 ISDC JATIM 1027 5 ISDC SUMBAR 983 6 ISDC KALTIM 1090 7 ISDC NTT 1106 ISDC SULSEL 954 ISDC BALI 871 10 ISDC RIAU 1003

Government/Affirmative ROLE OF SPEAKER Government/Affirmative Opposition/Negative First Speaker: Give the definition of the motion Outline the team’s case: Present the team line Present the team split Explain the arguments that are the 1st speaker’s split Give a brief summary/recap of the speech Respond to the definition Rebut 1st Government speaker

Government/Affirmative Opposition/Negative Second Speaker: Rebut the Opposition’s main arguments Briefly restate/reiterate in general the Government’s team case Explain the arguments that are the 2nd speaker’s split Give a brief summary/recap of the speech Rebut the Government’s main arguments Briefly restate/reiterate in general the Opposition’s team case

Government/Affirmative Opposition/Negative Third Speaker: Rebut Opposition’s arguments, prioritizing the strong/important ones Rebuild the team’s case Summarize the issues of the debate Note: It is not advisable for 3rd Government to bring new arguments Rebut Government’s arguments, prioritizing the strong/important ones It is forbidden for 3rd Opposition to bring new arguments

Government/Affirmative Opposition/Negative Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker: Provide a summary or overview of the debate Identify the issues raised by both teams Explain why the Government’s case and response are better than the Opposition’s Note: Reply speakers are prohibited to bring new arguments and give rebuttals Explain why the Opposition’s case and response are better than the Government’s

MOTION & DEFINITION Motions are a statements that determine what a debate shall be about Government team must defend/support the motion, Opposition team must oppose it Every motion must be define, to have a clear understanding of what the motion means The right to give a definition belongs to the Government team (in the 1st speaker)

Unreasonable Definition: 1. Truistic (True by nature) Tautological (Self-proving) Squirreling (No logic and clear link) Time and Place Set Unfairly Such case, negative may challenge it. Definitional Challenge is highly discouraged, Only if it’s Undebateable (Truistic and Tautological), or Unfair Time and Place Setting

CASE Case is the whole arguments brought by the Government or Opposition team Case has to touch the issue and spirit of the motion Has bold stance Opposition has own stance that in line with their rebuttals (negate the idea of Government). Rebuttals and arguments should be distinct.

ARGUMENTS Good arguments are logical and relevant to the point being proven Structure of argument: 1. Assertion – the statement which should be proved 2. Reasoning – the reason why that statement is logical 3. Evidence – examples/data that support the assertion and reasoning above 4. Link Back – the explanation of the relevance of this argument to the motion

Arguments also show in form of rebuttals Arguments also show in form of rebuttals. Rebuttals are responses towards the other team’s arguments Philosophical or Practical argument?? In WSDC system, Philosophical arguments are more favorable E.g: THW Ban Demonstration Traffic Jam vs. Freedom of Speech

Point of Information (POI) Stand up and say “On that point, Sir/Mam..” Content of POIs: Fact, Data, Question, Argument, etc. Done in maximum 15 seconds Be polite, no barraging Not given or accept any POI, do barraging will be penalized

ADJUDICATION

WHO’S ADJUDICATOR? Adjudicator is an average reasonable person, with: Average reasonable knowledge (read newspaper everyday) Average Intellectual logic Expert knowledge of debating rules

FUNCTION OF ADJUDICATOR To evaluate and assess the debate from the beginning until the end, To decide which team has won the debate, To reflect their assessment in the adjudicator’s sheet, To provide reasoning for the decision they have reached, To give constructive criticism and advice to the debaters.

DON’Ts Use your personal right or expert knowledge (Step in into the debate) Has preconceived opinions on issues Judging based on personal likes/dislikes Award victory to a team because they have same belief/opinion with you Act as if you know nothing and accept any illogical arguments and wrong general facts

HOW DO YOU ASSESS A DEBATE Clashes (in relations to which clash is prioritized) Burden of proof Which teams manage to grasp the center issue of the motion Responses (including POIs) Minor things : time management, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, gradual explanations

Clashes The idea that negated each other Usually found in form of rebuttal E.g: THW Legalize All Drugs Aff: Right of self determination Neg: Government’s obligation to protect Society’s health See how the debate goes, weight which arguments is more proven, more important, more significant to the issue

Burden of Proof Things that both team has to proof to achieve their goal E.g: THW Ban Smoking Smoking give significant harm to the Society (Issue) Government has right to regulate the people’s consumption (Justification) Ban will solve the problem (Solvency)

Grasp the issue means that the team know what’s the motion should be about, and provide arguments that significant to the issue Responses show that one team disagree with the opponent’s idea, it shows from rebuttals and POIs Time management, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, gradual explanations are problems regarding with their strategy. Fatal inconsistencies might make them lose

IMPORTANT NOTIFICATIONS One liner argument Jumping logic Wrong facts You may do penalized if : New matter in third speaker and reply Undertime or overtime Not accept or give POI Barraging

Give penalized doesn’t mean the opposing team win, just affect to scoring There’s No automatic winning or losing, judge the debate on overall aspect, do not decide based only on one factor Adjudicator musn’t have any relation with any debaters within both teams to prevent conflict of interest (e.g: family, teacher-student) Make decision only from what happens in the debate, assess as it is

SCORING Matter– marked 40 out of 100 (40%) Manner– marked 40 out of 100 (40%) Method- marked 20 out of 100 (20%) Penalized will slightly reduce their score from what they should have, especially affect Method’s mark

Matter/Content: The arguments that are used Assess the weight of the arguments without being influenced by the magnificence of the orator that presented them Also include an assessment of the weight of rebuttal or clash If a team introduces a weak argument, it will not score highly in content even if the other team doesn't t refute it Elaboration to proof the arguments

Manner/Style: Method/Strategy: The way the speakers speak Clarity, fluency is important Intonation, speed, volume, accent may differ Method/Strategy: Structure (remember the role) and timing Understanding the issues > different with content (argument is analysis to the issue) Answer and give POIs, politeness

MARKING SCALE Standard Overall (100) Matter (40) Manner Method (20) Godlike 80 32 16 Exceptional 76-79 31 15-16 Excellent 74-75 30 15 Very Good 71-73 29 14-15 Good 70 28 14 Competent 67-69 27 13-14 Pass 65-66 26 13 Improvement Needed 61-64 25 12-13 No Speech 60 24 12

MATTER/CONTENT (40%) Score Criteria 80 He/she simply knows everything, all proven 76-79 Arguments comparable with doctrine from experts 74-75 Highly logical arguments with effective elaboration and supported by highly trusted evidence 71-73 Strong arguments with good attempt to elaborate and provide good example, data, etc 70 Average arguments with good attempt to elaborate, average example 67-69 Acceptable arguments with weak attempt to elaborate, minor example (not really significant with the argument) 65-66 Weak arguments with a very weak attempt to elaborate (mostly one liner), no example given 61-64 Dummy ideas, full of repetition 60 Have nothing to say

MANNER/STYLE (40%) Score Criteria 80 He/she is able to make you follow his/her new religion 76-79 Can be compared with President Soekarno’s oration 74-75 Really persuasive, very exciting, as fluent as native 71-73 Persuasive, exciting, fluent 70 Understandable, clear, confident 67-69 Somehow understandable, still many hesitation 65-66 Barely understanable, boring, lack of confidence 61-64 Shame performance, barely able to speak in english, almost all audience are sleep except adjudicators 60 An open mouth statute

METHOD/STRATEGY (20%) Score Criteria 80 The one who makes the WSDC system 76-79 The new Napoleon Bonaparte, master of strategy 74-75 Trendsetter, others can only try to follow their strategy 71-73 Well structurized, good time management, well engagement 70 Easy to follow, know the proper issue of the debate 67-69 Know how to deliver argument and the issue to engange 65-66 Complicated structure, scatter, undertime 61-64 Can’t be understood 60 Simply knows nothing about the system

Practically, there’ll be no score 60 and 80 given to any debater Usually the score will be within the range of 65-75 The score for Reply speech is half from substantive speech Range 30-40, with average 35

ADJUDICATOR’S CODE OF CONDUCT Appreciate the debaters E.g : No texting, answering phone, chatting, sleeping, make disturbing expression and sound Take a note Be polite, respect differences Go past grammar, accent, style Adjudicate holistically

VERBAL ADJUDICATION

STRUCTURE OF VERBAL Tell the decision Explain the justifications or reasons behind the decision Give feedback To the point Don’t just repeat what the debaters say, do analyze the clashes, burden, etc

DEBATE EXHIBITION Try to analyze the debate exhibition, understand the clashes, burden of both teams, etc You have 10-15 minutes to make decision and structurise your verbal before you deliver it The ideal verbal time is 5 minutes

DESIGNING TOURNAMENT

WHAT DO WE NEED? Debate System Rules and Regulation Commitee A-Team and Adjudicators Participants

DEBATE SYSTEM World School’s System (WSDC) Asian Parliamentary System Australian Parliamentary System British Parliamentary System

RULES AND REGULATION Rules about the technicalities to conduct a debate tournament, besides the system General and specific rules, guideline for commitee, participants, and adjudicators Cover every aspects E.g: Forfeit, In case of sick, latency, punishment that may be given if break the rules, chances to be government and negative, match up system, etc. Adapt with your demand

MATCH-UP SYSTEM To determine the Government and Opposition Team for every room, there’re two systems: 1. Power Match 2. Break and Slide

1. Power Match 1st rank meet 2nd rank 3d rank meet 4th rank Odd number: Government Even number: Opposition RANK TEAM VP 1 ISDC JABAR 3 2 ISDC NAD ISDC JKT 4 ISDC YOGYA 5 ISDC SULSEL 6 ISDC NTB RANK GOV OPP 1 ISDC JABAR 2 ISDC NAD 3 ISDC JKT 4 ISDC YOGYA 5 ISDC SULSEL 6 ISDC NTB

2. Break and slide Make bracket of the same VP Break it into two, slide it If odd, take one from the top of next VP’s bracket RANK TEAM VP 1 ISDC JABAR 3 2 ISDC NAD ISDC JKT 4 ISDC YOGYA 5 ISDC SULSEL 6 ISDC NTB RANK GOV OPP 1 ISDC JABAR 4 ISDC YOGYA 2 ISDC NAD 5 ISDC SULSEL 3 ISDC JKT 6 ISDC NTB

COMMITEE Convenor / Project Officer Tounament Director, focus on tournament, make rules and regulation Liason Officer, 1 for every team Gov: chairperson Opp: timekeeper Tabulation Handle the whole tabulation as result of every rounds, match up for the next round Make the tabulation system

A-TEAM & ADJUDICATORS A-Team consists of Chief Adjudicator, and Deputi Chief Adjudicators, at least one person (one Chief Adjudicator with no Deputi Chief Adjudicator) Their job is to gather adjudicator, allocate them in the room for every rounds To make the motions for every round

PARTICIPANTS 3 Persons each teams Total teams has to be in even number If not even, make one swing team Pre-eliminary rounds, eliminary rounds Number of room needed is half of total participants

THANK YOU HOPEFULLY WE’LL BE HELPFUL TO OUR STUDENTS